And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI.....

This too is just a take off of Borel's law that all of us who major in science tend to run across at some point as an undergrad.

It's actually not that complicated to comprehend.

Very well.

Please point me to a thing.

Please determine the amount of CSI that that thing has.

Please show how you came to that conclusion.

Now, please point me to two more things. One designed, one not designed.

Show me that there more CSI in the designed thing then the not-designed thing.

You see it's easy to say "Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI....." but what you can't do is put a specific value to it.

CSI is like obscenity in that regard. You can't tell me what it is but you'll certanly know it when you see it.

Define CSI and compute, calculate, measure it for the organism of your choice. Show your work.

Or better yet, provide a detailed series of steps for said measurement or calculation, then pick an organism and let's both do the work and see if we get the same answer.

I've got about 8 mathematicians sitting within 40 feet of me and I can pick up the phone and call no fewer than three people with Ph.D.s in statistical analysis, so don't be afraid to drop the math stuff.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

But I am not one of those claiming that CSI has been defined, so I'm not the one who needs to supply a definition.

If it had a definition, you could have supplied it just now, but you didn't.

Keep in mind that it wouldn't work to define CSI simply as something that can't evolve, because that would produce a circular argument.

Perhaps I didn't define it formally for you because I was making chat in an informal conversation. But I'll be glad to:

CSI: Complex and specified information that when the odds for its existence are calculated and those odds exceed the UPB (upper probability boundary), could not occur by chance.

There you go and it's that simple.

Borel calculated, chemically speaking, that in order for a chemical reaction to occur, the reactants had to have both chemical ability to react and be within close enough proximity in the universe to do so.

Should the odds of those two things occuring be greater than 1 in 10^50 against occurance, that reaction could never happen no matter how much time is given for it to occur.

Borel's UPB was 10^50 -- Dembski thought it should be higher and mused that 10^150 should be the UPB....That seems to be well accepted today in modern ID, certainly by me.

So, we can take this into bits if you wish which usually seems easier to understand in these conversations:

If the information contains over 500 bits of information and that information is specified....it ain't gonna happen in nature without a designer....*wink*

Borel calculated, chemically speaking, that in order for a chemical reaction to occur, the reactants had to have both chemical ability to react and be within close enough proximity in the universe to do so.

Should the odds of those two things occuring be greater than 1 in 10^50 against occurance, that reaction could never happen no matter how much time is given for it to occur.

Hydrogen makes up 74% of the known matter in the universe.

Having an oxygen molecule react with two SPECIFIC hydrogen atoms is massively improbable.

However, an oxygen molecule reacting with ANY two hydrogen atoms approaches 1.

You assumptions define CSI.

Besides, recent experimental evidence shows that the formation of long chain amino acids is relatively easy. Randomly forming a specific human (for example) protein is vastly improbable. However, only creationists require that all proteins assemble from random amino acids. It's a strawman argument.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

*****Besides, recent experimental evidence shows that the formation of long chain amino acids is relatively easy. Randomly forming a specific human (for example) protein is vastly improbable. However, only creationists require that all proteins assemble from random amino acids. It's a strawman argument.*****

Recent? I've known that since I was a kid. What you are referring to here (I think) is homochirality. And I'm afraid that stereochemistry is far from creationism, although you'll have to ask them as I really am not that hep on creationism.

Keep in mind that it wouldn't work to define CSI simply as something that can't evolve, because that would produce a circular argument.

When did I define CSI as something that cannot evolve? Are you not aware of drug resistance in the mutation and hence evolution of certain organisms? Those organisms are certainly CSI.

Please understand the concept that the modern IDist holds before you attempt to debate it.

Evolution is a fact of science.

Jim Bob,

There's really no need for no hard 'rithmetic. All you gotta do is post a copy of the specifications for something that's got CSI and we're done here. Things that are specified do have specifications, right?

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

Your pals may not understand how to keep a website running, but I can assure you that my papers are still available. I just checked both links to my work, and they do deliver the goods.

I don't think anyone will have any difficulty seeing that you were dismissing things without understanding them in 2004, and nothing has changed for you in the interim, apparently.

Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

Your pals may not understand how to keep a website running, but I can assure you that my papers are still available. I just checked both links to my work, and they do deliver the goods.

I don't think anyone will have any difficulty seeing that you were dismissing things without understanding them in 2004, and nothing has changed for you in the interim, apparently.

Oh, I absolutely understood them. Your problem, if I recall...is that you failed to fully grasp the logic of Dembski.

I spent most of my paper pointing out "that's not what he meant." My paper: Answering: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

BTW, to my respondants on this thread, I show how the UPB is arrived at mathematically in this paper as well.

The abstract reads: "Philosopher William Dembski has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design. Elsberry and Wilkins proposed that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational. They further posit in the abstract that if background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly and that Dembski fails to overcome Hume's objections to arguments from design, neither posit substantiated in the paper. I will show this paper as not based on science or logic and blatantly erroneous, as peer reviewed herein, in its basal tenets."

Yet you did not show that: "if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational"

Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

Your pals may not understand how to keep a website running, but I can assure you that my papers are still available. I just checked both links to my work, and they do deliver the goods.

I don't think anyone will have any difficulty seeing that you were dismissing things without understanding them in 2004, and nothing has changed for you in the interim, apparently.

Oh, I absolutely understood them. Your problem, if I recall...is that you failed to fully grasp the logic of Dembski.

I spent most of my paper pointing out "that's not what he meant." My paper: Answering: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

BTW, to my respondants on this thread, I show how the UPB is arrived at mathematically in this paper as well.

The abstract reads: "Philosopher William Dembski has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design. Elsberry and Wilkins proposed that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational. They further posit in the abstract that if background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly and that Dembski fails to overcome Hume's objections to arguments from design, neither posit substantiated in the paper. I will show this paper as not based on science or logic and blatantly erroneous, as peer reviewed herein, in its basal tenets."

Yet you did not show that: "if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational"

Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

Your pals may not understand how to keep a website running, but I can assure you that my papers are still available. I just checked both links to my work, and they do deliver the goods.

I don't think anyone will have any difficulty seeing that you were dismissing things without understanding them in 2004, and nothing has changed for you in the interim, apparently.

Oh, I absolutely understood them. Your problem, if I recall...is that you failed to fully grasp the logic of Dembski.

I spent most of my paper pointing out "that's not what he meant." My paper: Answering: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

BTW, to my respondants on this thread, I show how the UPB is arrived at mathematically in this paper as well.

The abstract reads: "Philosopher William Dembski has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design. Elsberry and Wilkins proposed that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational. They further posit in the abstract that if background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly and that Dembski fails to overcome Hume's objections to arguments from design, neither posit substantiated in the paper. I will show this paper as not based on science or logic and blatantly erroneous, as peer reviewed herein, in its basal tenets."

Yet you did not show that: "if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational"

Do you want to calculate or measure the CSI of an organism or teach me to do so and us compare the results?

You seem so ignorant in this subject (don't mean that as a slur just an observation as we are all ignorant in some subjects).

Why on earth would you want to calculate the CSI of an organism? Just a simple genome is lightyears over the 500 measly bits of information that make something CSI. Many proteins are as well...common sense should tell you that.

Comparing the genome to computer data storageIn order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer, we need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in a binary format (0 and 1). These 0 and 1 bits are usually grouped together to form a larger unit, with the smallest being a “byte” that represents 8 bits. We can denote each base pair using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11). Each 2-bit combination would represent one DNA base pair. A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs. In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations:

Do you want to calculate or measure the CSI of an organism or teach me to do so and us compare the results?

You seem so ignorant in this subject (don't mean that as a slur just an observation as we are all ignorant in some subjects).

Why on earth would you want to calculate the CSI of an organism? Just a simple genome is lightyears over the 500 measly bits of information that make something CSI. Many proteins are as well...common sense should tell you that.

Comparing the genome to computer data storageIn order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer, we need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in a binary format (0 and 1). These 0 and 1 bits are usually grouped together to form a larger unit, with the smallest being a “byte” that represents 8 bits. We can denote each base pair using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11). Each 2-bit combination would represent one DNA base pair. A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs. In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations:

... and most organisms have had a billion years or so of evolution -- oh, sorry, changes in allele frequency -- to develop this complexity. (headdesk headdesk headdesk).

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

... and most organisms have had a billion years or so of evolution -- oh, sorry, changes in allele frequency -- to develop this complexity. (headdesk headdesk headdesk).

Which brings us right back to the point that whatshisface has already admitted to

Quote

*****Besides, recent experimental evidence shows that the formation of long chain amino acids is relatively easy. Randomly forming a specific human (for example) protein is vastly improbable. However, only creationists require that all proteins assemble from random amino acids. It's a strawman argument.*****

Recent? I've known that since I was a kid.

So, he admits that his entire concept here is completely made up. Of course, I'd be really curious as to "when I as a kid" means.

eta: Let me explain further.

If you KNOW that amino acids can self assemble, then you have just admitted that non-intelligence can form complex systems that are capable of catalytic functions (which they were not before). This is a massive increase in "complexity" however you would like to define it.

It is up to your and yours to show that intelligence is involved. Since there have been many experiments that show that amino acids can self assemble, please grab one or two of those experiments and who us exactly where the intelligence appeared, what tools it used to manipulate the amino acids into a form that was capable of a catalytic function, and why the researchers doing the experiment missed it, but you managed to catch it.

If you cannot do this, then there is no evidence that intelligence is required.

Two points:1) Stating "non-intelligence can't do it" is not evidence2) Yes, human designers designed an experiment to have amino acids self assemble. If you can't understand why this is not an objection to these experiments, then I will explain it to you and you will be forever ignored as someone who doesn't understand the most basic (i.e. 5th grade) concepts of the scientific process.

Edited by OgreMkV on Nov. 19 2012,17:11

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

*****Besides, recent experimental evidence shows that the formation of long chain amino acids is relatively easy. Randomly forming a specific human (for example) protein is vastly improbable. However, only creationists require that all proteins assemble from random amino acids. It's a strawman argument.*****

Recent? I've known that since I was a kid. What you are referring to here (I think) is homochirality. And I'm afraid that stereochemistry is far from creationism, although you'll have to ask them as I really am not that hep on creationism.

No. I'm not referring to homochirality.

Read what I said. If it's unclear, then I suggest you ask questions before assuming something. I know that's hard to do for creationists, but if you did that, then it would be much less embarrassing for you.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Do you want to calculate or measure the CSI of an organism or teach me to do so and us compare the results?

You seem so ignorant in this subject (don't mean that as a slur just an observation as we are all ignorant in some subjects).

Why on earth would you want to calculate the CSI of an organism? Just a simple genome is lightyears over the 500 measly bits of information that make something CSI. Many proteins are as well...common sense should tell you that.

Comparing the genome to computer data storageIn order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer, we need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in a binary format (0 and 1). These 0 and 1 bits are usually grouped together to form a larger unit, with the smallest being a “byte” that represents 8 bits. We can denote each base pair using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11). Each 2-bit combination would represent one DNA base pair. A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs. In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations:

Is this CSI? Yes/No Why?[/quote]Ok, I wasn't being rude and you are not taking it that way...Good.

But are the numbers you posted CSI? No. Unless I'm missing something.....How are they even specified information at all?

Of course, I don't know what they represent but they just seem like a random listing of numbers to me at this point.

Have you read any of my or Dembski's writings using an archer to define specificity and calculating it?

It would seem germain to the subject should you want to learn that.

Interesting. Because if you had the correct algorithm you would find these number to be very, very specific.

In other words, you can't use CSI to tell the difference between a random series of numbers and a series of non-random numbers.

So, what's the point in CSI? It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't tell us anything unique or useful about the real world.

You do realize that any amino acid chain longer than 250 AAs is, by your definition "CSI" and therefore requiring intelligence. Do you realize that AA chains of nearly that length have been developed in the lab using the random attachments that you deplore as not being capable of forming CSI.

While we're at it, can you explain the 500 bit limit?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

When did I define CSI as something that cannot evolve? Are you not aware of drug resistance in the mutation and hence evolution of certain organisms? Those organisms are certainly CSI.

You defined it this way:

Quote

CSI: Complex and specified information that when the odds for its existence are calculated and those odds exceed the UPB (upper probability boundary), could not occur by chance.

The stuff in that sentence was designed to say "it can't have evolved" without saying it in those words.

The phrase "odds for its existence" could mean either the odds for this exact result, or the odds for any result that we might call "alive". The problem with that is that calculations of odds can only be made for particular results, but the more general case is the one you're trying to say is improbable to the point of impossibility.